A Parliamentary committee is calling for dozens of changes to the 'Snoopers' Charter'

Reuters
The third official report in a row has called for significant changes to the UK government's controversial proposed spying law dubbed the "Snoopers' Charter."

A Parliamentary Committee set up for the purpose of reviewing the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill published its report Thursday, calling for 86 changes to the bill.

These include:

Greater clarity on encryption.

Better justifying the need for bulk powers.

Making sure the bill reflects the technical reality.

The report questions the technical viability of some aspects of the bill, saying: "We recommend that more effort should be made to reflect not only the policy aims but also the practical realities of how the internet works on a technical level."

It calls for greater clarity on encryption, one of the most contentious aspects of the proposed law.

"The Government still needs to make explicit on the face of the Bill that CSPs offering end-to-end encrypted communication or other un-decryptable communication services will not be expected to provide decrypted copies of those communications if it is not practicable for them to do so," the joint committee's report says.

It also says the government "should publish a fuller justification for each of the bulk powers" the bill would grant law enforcement. The report says that as it currently stands, the powers the bill grants "could be exercised in a way that does not comply with the requirements of Article 8" of the European Convention on Human Rights — opening it up to potential legal challenges.

This story is developing. Refresh for updates.

The joint committee was established for the purpose of considering the draft bill, and recommending alterations where it sees fit. It is composed of both MPs and Lords, and is cross-party — with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and SNP members.

The Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) is an attempt from Cameron's Conservative government to modernise the laws about spying and provide law enforcement with appropriate tools for the twenty-first century.

But it has also been coming under heavy criticism. On February 9, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a parliamentary committee that acts as watchdog for the intelligence services, savaged the bill— calling parts "inconsistent and largely incomprehensible," attacking its lack of privacy protections, and saying the entire bill seems rushed.

"Taken as a whole, the draft Bill fails to deliver the clarity that is so badly needed in this area," the ISC report reads. "The issues under consideration are undoubtedly complex, however it has been evident that even those working on the legislation have not always been clear as to what the provisions are intended to achieve."

It adds: "The draft Bill appears to have suffered from a lack of sufficient time and preparation."

Announcing the Select Committee's report, Nicola Blackwood, MP of the committee, said in a statement that "the current lack of clarity within the draft Investigatory Powers Bill is causing concern amongst businesses. There are widespread doubts over the definition, not to mention the definability, of a number of the terms used in the draft Bill. The Government must urgently review the legislation so that the obligations on the industry are clear and proportionate."

These concerns over clarity are echoed by the ISC report. At one point, it says that "the approach towards the examination of Communications Data in the draft Bill is inconsistent and largely incomprehensible."

Another issue the ISC raised is privacy considerations — and the lack thereof in the bill. The report reads (emphasis ours):

We had expected to find universal privacy protections applied consistently throughout, or at least an overarching statement at the forefront of the legislation. Instead, the draft Bill adopts a rather piecemeal approach, which lacks clarity and undermines the importance of the safeguards associated with these powers. We have therefore recommended that the new legislation contains an entirely new Part dedicated to overarching privacy protections, which should form the backbone of the draft legislation around which the exceptional powers are then built. This will ensure that privacy is an integral part of the legislation rather than an add-on.

We've now had three Parliamentary reports raising serious concerns with this draft Bill. On vital issues like encryption, internet connection records, bulk equipment interference powers and extraterritorial reach all three reports have said that there are still too many aspects that are unclear, poorly defined or just wrong. The Home Office must recognise this and address the fundamental concerns raised by expert witnesses, MPs and Lords.

We fully support the objective to create a clear legal framework for investigatory powers that is worthy of emulation around the world. This is achievable only if the government takes on board some of the key recommendations that have been set out by these three Parliamentary reports, however, with an additional recess now expected for an EU referendum there is a real concern about the time left to get this right and ensure the proper parliamentary scrutiny.